Case: Brown v. Bush

1:98-cv-00673 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Filed Date: May 24, 1998

Closed Date: 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 24, 1998, a group of individuals confined to Florida's four Developmental State Institutions for Persons with Developmental Disabilities ("DSIs") filed suit against the state of Florida and relevant state officials alleging that defendants failed to take appropriate measures to habilitate the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs suffered grave harm as a result. They asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA") and its regulations; the Rehab…

On May 24, 1998, a group of individuals confined to Florida's four Developmental State Institutions for Persons with Developmental Disabilities ("DSIs") filed suit against the state of Florida and relevant state officials alleging that defendants failed to take appropriate measures to habilitate the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs suffered grave harm as a result. They asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA") and its regulations; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 29 U .S.C. § 794; the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq . and its regulations; and 42 U .S.C. § 1983, alleging Due Process and Equal Protection violations. Represented by Florida's Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, the plaintiffs asked the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida for declaratory and injunctive relief.

In May 1998, defendants filed a motion to dismiss based, among other things, on lack of standing and failure to state a claim under the ADA. Defendants also argued that plaintiffs were barred from bringing suit against the State because the State was immune from suit by private citizens under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In July 1998, the United States Department of Justice filed a motion to intervene in the case and included a memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. The DOJ also filed for leave to address as amicus curiae the proper construction of the ADA as it related to this case.

In its memo on the motion to dismiss, the DOJ argued that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act were valid examples of Congress's power to abrogate, or abolish, the states' immunity from suit by private citizens. It also argued that both the ADA and the integration mandate established by the Supreme Court in L.C. v. Olmstead in 1998 provided a cause of action under which plaintiffs could challenge unnecessary institutionalization of mentally ill persons. On October 15, 1998, Judge Ferguson granted the DOJ's motion to intervene in the motion to dismiss and denied its motion to participate as amicus curiae.

On March 31, 1999, Judge Ferguson denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On March 10, 1999, the Court (Judge Wilkie D. Ferguson) entered an order certifying a class. Defendants appealed the order to the Eleventh Circuit and on February 3, 2000, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion reversing and vacating the class certification order and remanding the matter back to the Court for further action with instructions to certify the class as instructed. On February 11, 2000, the Court (Judge Ferguson) issued a Revised Order certifying a class.

After lengthy mediation and negotiations, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement on May 11, 2004, which was filed with the Court on May 21, 2004. On June 16, 2004, the parties submitted an amended Agreement, according to which defendants agreed to utilize both the Supported Living Home and Community-Based Services Waiver and the Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Services Waiver to serve clients residing in the DSIs. Defendants also agreed to close one DSI no later than June 30, 2005 and another no later than July 1, 2010.

On August 11, 2005, the Court (Judge Jose E. Martinez) approved the Amended Settlement Agreement. On July 2, 2007, Judge Martinez granted the parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss Case After Substantial Compliance with Amended Settlement Agreement and closed the case.

Summary Authors

Kunyi Zhang (1/30/2011)

Lauren Latterell Powell (11/4/2017)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/40650738/parties/brown-v-chiles/


Judge(s)

Ferguson, Wilkie D. Jr. (Florida)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Fleischner, Robert D. (Massachusetts)

Attorney for Defendant

Crist, Charles J. Jr. (Florida)

Daniel, Stephanie A. (Florida)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Breen, Philip L. (District of Columbia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:98-cv-00673

Docket

July 2, 2007

July 2, 2007

Docket
1

1:98-cv-00673

Complaint

March 26, 1998

March 26, 1998

Complaint

1:98-cv-00673

United States' Memorandum of Law As Amicus Curiae and Intervenor In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Brown v. Chiles

July 17, 1998

July 17, 1998

Pleading / Motion / Brief
37

1:98-cv-00673

United States' Memorandum of Law as Amicus Curiae and Intervenor in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Brown v. Chiles

July 17, 1998

July 17, 1998

Pleading / Motion / Brief
123

1:98-cv-00673

Memorandum on Motion for Class Certification

March 11, 1999

March 11, 1999

Order/Opinion
293

1:98-cv-00673

Settlement Agreement

May 21, 2004

May 21, 2004

Settlement Agreement
296

1:98-cv-00673

Amended Settlement Agreement

June 17, 2004

June 17, 2004

Settlement Agreement
341

1:98-cv-00673

Order Approving Settlement Agreement

Aug. 12, 2005

Aug. 12, 2005

Settlement Agreement
360

1:98-cv-00673

Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss Case

July 2, 2007

July 2, 2007

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/40650738/brown-v-chiles/

Last updated Dec. 18, 2024, 7:26 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Florida

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 24, 1998

Closing Date: 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Individuals then confined to Florida’s four Developmental State Institutions for Persons with Developmental Disabilities.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of Florida, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2004 - 2007

Issues

General/Misc.:

Housing

Benefits (Source):

Medicaid

Disability and Disability Rights:

Depression

Integrated setting

Least restrictive environment

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Mental impairment

Schizophrenia

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Placement in mental health facilities

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Mental health care, general